PDA

View Full Version : Ayn Rand Was NOT a Libertarian




stu2002
11-29-2012, 06:45 AM
Many people assume that Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlYX5kS9eNX6O4OMb6lQ5RP5vX4DACH zCW4wtnPOqj3Y1TLg9m

But Rand herself pilloried libertarians, condemning libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism. For example, Rand said:

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

***

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis [than a candidate from the Libertarian Party].

***

[The Libertarian Party is] a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

LibertyEagle
11-29-2012, 07:02 AM
Who cares? I'm not in this to sell libertarianism. I want my country back.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 07:06 AM
Meh. If I wear glasses - but I insist that I don't wear glasses (and I say that people who wear glasses are a bunch of disreputably myopic squinters) - does that mean that I don't wear glasses?

Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought - regardless of whether she or Lenny Peikoff or "George Washington" or anyone else likes it or not.

She was right about some things. She was wrong about others. Same as every other human being who has ever lived, libertarian or otherwise.

FrankRep
11-29-2012, 07:07 AM
I'm a Constitutionalist myself.

July
11-29-2012, 07:17 AM
Eh, she also thought libertarians were plagerizing her ideas. And libertarians at the time criticized her for running a cult and for being too rigid and intolerant of any deviation to her philosophy, so there was obviously a lot of personal resentment and baggage on both sides of the respective movements... I take a lot of the he said/she said with a grain of salt.

BuddyRey
11-29-2012, 11:23 AM
She was just bitter that the movement became something bigger than herself and her own little insular cadre. She laughably claimed libertarians "stole her ideas" even though American libertarianism had been around as a conscious and self-realized movement for at least a hundred years. Also, Rand herself stole from Isabell Paterson and Garet Garrett, even borrowing huge elements of the plot and the name of the protagonist from the latter's novel "The Driver."

PaulConventionWV
11-29-2012, 11:38 AM
Meh. If I wear glasses - but I insist that I don't wear glasses (and I say that people who wear glasses are a bunch of disreputably myopic squinters) - does that mean that I don't wear glasses?

Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought - regardless of whether she or Lenny Peikoff or "George Washington" or anyone else likes it or not.

She was right about some things. She was wrong about others. Same as every other human being who has ever lived, libertarian or otherwise.

So, in other words, Ayn Rand is a liar, correct?

erowe1
11-29-2012, 11:44 AM
She laughably claimed libertarians "stole her ideas" even though American libertarianism had been around as a conscious and self-realized movement for at least a hundred years.

It's doubly laughable, because isn't part of the point of propounding her ideas to get others to agree with them?

JohnM
11-29-2012, 11:51 AM
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian . . . and Mozart was a Red.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 11:51 AM
So, in other words, Ayn Rand is a liar, correct?

That would depend on what she actually believed. Going on the assumption that she believed what she said, she would not be a liar.

heavenlyboy34
11-29-2012, 12:19 PM
But of course, anarchists are collectivists.
LMAO

July
11-29-2012, 12:26 PM
Maye she didn't agree with using that word. Libertarian used to mean a certain type of left anarchism. The modern American movement took that word to redefine it, because according to Murray Rothbard, "liberalism" no longer stood for classical liberalism...he saw it as capturing a word from the opposition, in the same way that the establishment had taken "liberal".

erowe1
11-29-2012, 12:28 PM
Maye she didn't agree with using that word. Libertarian used to mean a certain type of left anarchism. The modern American movement took that word to redefine it, because according to Murray Rothbard, "liberalism" no longer stood for classical liberalism...he saw it as capturing a word from the opposition, in the same way that the establishment had taken "liberal".

She was definitely talking about Rothbard and company.

Czolgosz
11-29-2012, 12:28 PM
lol @ labeling yourself into a box.

Zeeder
11-29-2012, 12:33 PM
When I see articles like this I shrug.

Our language has become convoluted. A libertarian or conservative seems to mean different things in different countries.

Ayn Rand wrote books that I agree with. What she said when she was drunk, or on TV, or in interviews don't change those principles.

Also, i always here some statist say she was a hypocrite for taking Social security. You aren't a hypocrite for taking money back that was originally stolen from you. And those that read "atlas Shrugged" would understand that. Ragnar remember? He is the pirate that took back money the government had stolen. Some people don't know what the term "hypocrite" even means.

aclove
11-29-2012, 12:34 PM
In 1972, Murray Rothbard wrote about his experiences with Rand and her movement.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

July
11-29-2012, 12:52 PM
She was definitely talking about Rothbard and company.Yes I think so too. I don't think she agreed with Murray's innovating, she thought merging capitalism with anarchism was utopian/impossible.

heavenlyboy34
11-29-2012, 12:52 PM
She was just bitter that the movement became something bigger than herself and her own little insular cadre. She laughably claimed libertarians "stole her ideas" even though American libertarianism had been around as a conscious and self-realized movement for at least a hundred years. Also, Rand herself stole from Isabell Paterson and Garet Garrett, even borrowing huge elements of the plot and the name of the protagonist from the latter's novel "The Driver."

She also took "Anthem" almost directly from "We"-Мы in the original Russian. (she just stripped the futuristic sci-fi bits and a few other things and wrote in her characteristic, rather dull style) I suspect she thought she could get away with it because at the time it was a relatively obscure 1930's novel that folks like Orwell read. I'm rather surprised Randroids have never called her on it (AFAIK).

idiom
11-29-2012, 01:02 PM
Many people assume that Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlYX5kS9eNX6O4OMb6lQ5RP5vX4DACH zCW4wtnPOqj3Y1TLg9m

But Rand herself pilloried libertarians, condemning libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism. For example, Rand said:

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

That's actually not an attack on libertarians but Libertarians. Also mostly on Rothbardists.

Rothbardism, of course, has no flaws and no serious divisions or disagreements amongst its adherents. Its adherents never advocate distinctly unlibertarian things.

Bob Barr was a Libertarian. Gary Johnson is a Libertarian. Being a Libertarian is not that awesome.

Claiming she is not a libertarian however, is pretty disingenuous.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 01:02 PM
I'm rather surprised Randroids have never called her on it (AFAIK).

I'm not. One of the defining characteristics of Randroids is that they never, ever call Rand on *anything*. To them, she is the Final Aribiter of All That Is Right and True.

Anyone who diverges from or disagrees with her must necessarily be a "hippie" or "socialist" or "anarchist" or "collectivist" or - worst of all - a "Kantian."

This is, after all, the woman who corrected and pefected Aristotle.

TheGrinch
11-29-2012, 01:16 PM
Who cares? I'm not in this to sell libertarianism. I want my country back.

This. We have so far to go before we even need to argue (and divide) over how limited (or absent) government should be... It's good enough for me that more and more Americans are realizing that the federal government is out of control, and that a number of it's functions can be better left to the states, locales and private enterprise.

We just have so far to go in changing minds and those in power before we let our disagreements over what's purely theoretical at this point take hold.

Odin
11-29-2012, 01:57 PM
LMAO

That's actually true (anarchists are collectivists). Anarchists are against private property which means they are against capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists but they don't really answer how property is protected without a government.

heavenlyboy34
11-29-2012, 02:01 PM
That's actually true (anarchists are collectivists). Anarchists are against private property which means they are against capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists but they don't really answer how property is protected without a government.
/facepalm ~sigh~ You have much to learn.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 02:07 PM
That's actually true (anarchists are collectivists). Anarchists are against private property which means they are against capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists but they don't really answer how property is protected without a government.

Yes, we do answer how. You just don't agree with our answer.

The fact that you don't agree is fine - but your disagreement with us on that point does NOT disqualify us from being anarchists, and we are NOT collectivists.

Odin
11-29-2012, 02:10 PM
I think the problems with Ayn Rand go further than her political positions. Some people here embrace Ayn Rand because she has similar opinions on the issues, but if you really delve into it, it is a dangerous and sick philosophy imo. Also the literature is poor but that's just my opinion.

If you want to form a solid understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, the best philosopher is probably David Hume. To make you skeptical of all philosophy and also just to have a fun time reading something brilliant, Nietzsche is the best imo.

A lot of what Ayn Rand has written and believed in is just very juvenile imo, and I think most people who have studied philosophy would notice enormous flaws with her ideas about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Odin
11-29-2012, 02:14 PM
Yes, we do answer how. You just don't agree with our answer.

The fact that you don't agree is fine - but your disagreement with us on that point does NOT disqualify us from being anarchists, and we are NOT collectivists.

So you think there should be no government at all, but there can still be private property rights in such a condition? Also if you are an anarchist, why does the quote in your signature mention the relationship between morality and Law?

WilliamShrugged
11-29-2012, 02:21 PM
So you think there should be no government at all, but there can still be private property rights in such a condition? Also if you are an anarchist, why does the quote in your signature mention the relationship between morality and Law?

Difference in having rules and having a ruler

vienna
11-29-2012, 02:24 PM
I'm not. One of the defining characteristics of Randroids is that they never, ever call Rand on *anything*. To them, she is the Final Aribiter of All That Is Right and True.

Anyone who diverges from or disagrees with her must necessarily be a "hippie" or "socialist" or "anarchist" or "collectivist" or - worst of all - a "Kantian."

This is, after all, the woman who corrected and pefected Aristotle.
what's wrong with immanuel kant?
that guy was brilliant. of course he wasn't perfect. but he was a genius.
not one of those 3rd class internet philosophers of today or ayn rand. he was an extraordinarily smart man.

erowe1
11-29-2012, 02:29 PM
So you think there should be no government at all, but there can still be private property rights in such a condition? Also if you are an anarchist, why does the quote in your signature mention the relationship between morality and Law?

Where do you get the "no government at all" part?

Odin
11-29-2012, 02:32 PM
Difference in having rules and having a ruler

Yes the difference is that the ruler makes the rules.

The problem with a ruler is that he makes oppressive rules, not that he enforces them. But it is for the protection of our freedom that we need an objective instrument (government) to enforce the correct rules (ie ensuring that people meet the obligations they consent to, particularly to their children). How do we ensure that parents feed their children, or that murderers are put in prison, or that a suspect is tried and judged fairly? I would certainly not trust a corporation motivated by profit to perform these functions, that would turn into a greater form of authoritarianism than we have now imo.

WilliamShrugged
11-29-2012, 02:34 PM
Rand:"But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism"

meanwhile this is Galt's Gulch laws and customs from her own writing...


John Galt described the Gulch to Dagny Taggart as a place of rest. The Gulch had no police force or sheriff, because it had no crime. The closest thing it had to an executive authority was a three-man Committee of Safety, consisting of John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, and Ragnar Danneskjöld. Indeed it was not a state of any kind, but a strictly voluntary association of homesteaders. Judge Narragansett's judicial activities were probably limited to the occasional Request for Judicial Intervention to ratify arbitration agreements. The judge might also have reopened his law practice to assist his neighbors with the drawing-up of contracts.

However, the Gulch had several unwritten customs which arose, as Galt also explained, as a reaction to the things that the residents sought to rest from. No one ever remained in the Gulch at another person's expense, nor asked nor granted any unremunerated favors. Every resident was expected to pay his rent to Midas Mulligan, or else pay room and board to the leaseholder of any house in which he stayed. Similarly, no one ever "borrowed" something belonging to another; instead one rented it and was expected to negotiate a rent with the owner. (And if one discovered that he was renting the same article often enough to make it a significant expense, then he might ask Midas Mulligan for a loan, if necessary, and buy the article.)
The economy of Galt's Gulch began simply and grew more complex as the community grew more populous. At first it was, of necessity, agricultural. Francisco d'Anconia worked a mine in the Red Mountain Pass in anticipation of a larger economy to come. But aside from him, Midas Mulligan alone lived full-time in the Gulch at first. He said that he "stocked this place to be self-supporting." Specifically, he built a house, cleared some land, grew wheat, and intended to raise cattle.

WilliamShrugged
11-29-2012, 02:38 PM
Yes the difference is that the ruler makes the rules.
.

Put some more thought into it. Society can determine their own rules without a ruler.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 02:39 PM
So you think there should be no government at all, but there can still be private property rights in such a condition?

Given that I am an anarcho-capitalist, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say .... yes?


Also if you are an anarchist, why does the quote in your signature mention the relationship between morality and Law?

Because that's what Bastiat said. What does my being an anarchist have to do with it? :confused:

acptulsa
11-29-2012, 02:41 PM
I think the problems with Ayn Rand go further than her political positions. Some people here embrace Ayn Rand because she has similar opinions on the issues, but if you really delve into it, it is a dangerous and sick philosophy imo. Also the literature is poor but that's just my opinion.

If you want to form a solid understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, the best philosopher is probably David Hume. To make you skeptical of all philosophy and also just to have a fun time reading something brilliant, Nietzsche is the best imo.

A lot of what Ayn Rand has written and believed in is just very juvenile imo, and I think most people who have studied philosophy would notice enormous flaws with her ideas about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

This. Plus, she was talking about a Libertarian Party in its infancy. What she said about anarcho-capitalists isn't completely untrue. It takes some very strong rose-colored glasses to say their philosophy has tradtionally (where it has had a chance, like frontier America a hundred fifty years ago or Somalia today) been a boon to widows and children keeping their assets. In addition, while it's true that the Federal government has been growing almost since the Constitution was ratified, it has been more exponential lately. Remember that not only did DHS not yet exist in Ayn Rand's time, but neither did ED (the Department of Education). Let's face it; Ayn Rand was no Huxley or Orwell. She could see the problem, but she was prone to underestimate the enemy. Her fictional parasites were seldom capable of reeducating the people who got things done; reality is just a little different.

Libertarians have had, what, forty years since Rand's death to better define 'libertarian'? And an ever growing and ever more overbearing federal government has changed the entire climate. In her time, the most serious libertarian saw things going the wrong way in Washington and wanted to nip it in the bud. No one took them seriously, and they knew why--the problem they were organizing to defeat was not hardly a major problem--yet. Easy to label someone looking that far ahead as 'hippie-like'. That's why anarcho-capitalism is taken seriously by so few. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If the federal government would only hold on loosely, as it used to do, we wouldn't have to force it to let go. And we wouldn't have to give up those few but important advantages that a minimal federal government does provide.

Yes, WmShrugged, it's amusing that she harps on ancaps when her Galt's Gulch was possibly the model for it. We won't mention that Huxley's little island for misfits in A Brave New World might have been the model for her gulch. I think she considered ancaps childish because they don't seem to notice that her Galt's Gulch might be like an anarchy, but you only get there by invitation.

If it is truly an anarchy, How does one gain authority to send out the invitations?

Odin
11-29-2012, 02:42 PM
Put some more thought into it. Society can determine their own rules without a ruler.

And when it puts in an authority to enforce those rules, that is government. And that society becomes a Republic, as Kant says.

Anarchy may have rules but without force, those rules are an empty recommendation.

NewRightLibertarian
11-29-2012, 02:42 PM
Well said. This woman was an enemy of liberty, and her modern-day followers are even worse than neocons. Anyone who triumphs her and her warped philosophy is doing a tremendous disservice to the freedom movement.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 02:47 PM
what's wrong with immanuel kant?

I didn't say anything was wrong with him. Ayn Rand certainly did, though. That was my point.

A Kantian was one of the worst things you could possibly be, according to Rand.

Speaking for myself, my biggest problem with Kant is the same one H. L. Mencken had:


Kant was probably the worst writer ever heard of on earth before Karl Marx. Some of his ideas were really quite simple, but he always managed to make them seem unintelligible. I hope he is in Hell.

Odin
11-29-2012, 02:47 PM
Given that I am an anarcho-capitalist, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say .... yes?



Because that's what Bastiat said. What does my being an anarchist have to do with it? :confused:

If you are confused why I am asking an anarchist about his signature which seems to endorse the notion of "Law", then idk what to tell you. That just seems contradictory to me. Who enforces the Law in anarchism?

And second, my first question implied the request for some kind of explanation on your part.

WilliamShrugged
11-29-2012, 02:48 PM
And when it puts in an authority to enforce those rules, that is government. And that society becomes a Republic, as Kant says.

Anarchy may have rules but without force, those rules are an empty recommendation.

Here's a intro for you to read. http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

vienna
11-29-2012, 02:54 PM
I didn't say anything was wrong with him. Ayn Rand certainly did, though. That was my point.

A Kantian was one of the worst things you could possibly be, according to Rand.

Speaking for myself, my biggest problem with Kant is the same one H. L. Mencken had:
he wishes him to hell because he thought his language wasn't simple/simplistic enough?
wow. my respect for this man.

dillo
11-29-2012, 02:56 PM
libertarians are not anarchists

Odin
11-29-2012, 02:58 PM
Here's a intro for you to read. http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

So here is the section on murder: "Murder
of course, one of the most basic stipulations in any contractual
relationship—whether entering a mall or living in a neighborhood
co-op—would be strong prohibitions on murder. In other words
all contracts of this type would have a clause saying, “If I am
found guilty of murder I agree to pay $y million to the estate of
the deceased.” naturally, no one would sign such a contract unless
he were sure that the trial procedures used to determine his guilt or
innocence had a strong presumption of innocence; nobody would
want to be found guilty of a murder he didn’t commit. But on
the other hand, the procedures would have to be designed so that
there were still a good chance that guilty people would actually be
convicted, since people don’t want to shop in malls where murder
goes unpunished.
and, because all contracts of this sort (except possibly in very
eccentric areas frequented by people who liked to live dangerously)
would contain such clauses, one could say that “murder is illegal”
in the whole anarchist society, even though the evidentiary rules and
penalties might differ from area to area. But this is no different from "

Obvious question is what happens if I refuse to sign a contract with an "arbitration agency" that could prosecute me? Am I free to murder people?

The previous section on "Contracts" doesn't address how everyone would sign a contract. It only says that employers would make their employees sign a contract before hiring them, but what if I am the employer? Or what if I don't have, want, or need a job?

NewRightLibertarian
11-29-2012, 03:02 PM
libertarians are not anarchists

Bullshit. Any libertarian worth a damn has taken the correct position on the abolition of the state regardless of the opinions of the likes of small-minded people like you.

acptulsa
11-29-2012, 03:09 PM
he wishes him to hell because he thought his language wasn't simple/simplistic enough?
wow. my respect for this man.

Mr. Mencken had a sense of humor. And endeavoring to explain something simple in two thousand words or more is indeed a particluar type of torture. Especially if it appears in a textbook and people are coerced into reading it.


Bullshit. Any libertarian worth a damn has taken the correct position on the abolition of the state regardless of the opinions of the likes of small-minded people like you.

Actually, most libertarians will suffer the state to exist if only it will sit quietly in the corner and not growl at or bite the hand that feeds it.

Odin
11-29-2012, 03:11 PM
Bullshit. Any libertarian worth a damn has taken the correct position on the abolition of the state regardless of the opinions of the likes of small-minded people like you.

I think most libertarians probably believe that the best way to protect Freedom is through a Republican form of government based on the correct principles of liberty. I would not entrust the protection of my freedom to a corporation. So I guess I would be on my own in your version of libertarianism.

FindLiberty
11-29-2012, 03:13 PM
...Any libertarian worth a damn has taken the correct position on the abolition of the state...

Yes, I'm 100% with you there!

+++
-----
+++

Ayn Rand has passed on. ...So now, what about those roads??? (just kidding)

NewRightLibertarian
11-29-2012, 03:13 PM
I think most libertarians probably believe that the best way to protect Freedom is through a Republican form of government based on the correct principles of liberty. I would not entrust the protection of my freedom to a corporation. So I guess I would be on my own in your version of libertarianism.

It is rather pathetic that you feel the need for the government to hold your hand and keep you safe. It is this confused line of thinking that allows for the state to persist and victimize all of mankind. Shame on you.



Actually, most libertarians will suffer the state to exist if only it will sit quietly in the corner and not growl at or bite the hand that feeds it.

The notion that the state can be controlled by 'we the people' is a very foolish one. As long as the state is around, it will be murdering, kidnapping, robbing and enslaving people which is why it needs to be abolished post haste.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 03:17 PM
I think the problems with Ayn Rand go further than her political positions. Some people here embrace Ayn Rand because she has similar opinions on the issues, but if you really delve into it, it is a dangerous and sick philosophy imo. Also the literature is poor but that's just my opinion.

If you want to form a solid understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, the best philosopher is probably David Hume. To make you skeptical of all philosophy and also just to have a fun time reading something brilliant, Nietzsche is the best imo.

A lot of what Ayn Rand has written and believed in is just very juvenile imo, and I think most people who have studied philosophy would notice enormous flaws with her ideas about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

I have studied philosophy, and I do not think that Rand's work is "juvenile" or "sick." Your condemnations smack strongly of personal prejudice. My own experience is that she has very many useful, insightful and povocatively interesting things to say. even when she is wrong - even when she is absurdly wrong. I think she took far too much credit for herself and crippled her work with her extreme insularity and her refusal to usefully engage the wider philosophical ouvre (except to harp on how awful she thought it all was). That she so obviously regarded herself as the Second Coming of Aristotle does not help.

Nietzsche is very interesting - and quite probably one of the most abused & misunderstood philosophers in history. He's invigorating & stimulating, but an ultimately subjective experience (which, I think, is exactly why he's been so abused by so many). His aphoristic style certainly didn't help, either. (Rand was a huge Nietzsche fan in her youth, by the way.)

In the end, I'd take Hume (for his empircism), Spinoza (for his rationalism) or Aristotle ('cause, hell, he's Aristotle) over Nietzsche, any day.

vienna
11-29-2012, 03:18 PM
Mr. Mencken had a sense of humor. And endeavoring to explain something simple in two thousand words or more is indeed a particluar type of torture. Especially if it appears in a textbook and people are coerced into reading it.
no. sometimes it's necessary to explain simple things with 2000 words.
and nobody i know is coerced into reading kant.
bertrand russell layed out in this book ...

http://blogs.ups.edu/125books/files/2012/07/web_PrincipiaMathematica3.jpg

... that 1 + 1 = 2

sometimes to be precise you can't be simple. i make contracts for building contracts every week. it's just about building houses. but they are very complex and complicated. .... and long. that's because reality is a lot more complex than you might think.
way too often people become simplistic in order to make themselves easily accessible.
anyway ... our world needs a lot more people like kant and a lot less people who will through around meaningless phrases and empty words.

freedom liberty constitution small government founding fathers ... all empty words.

acptulsa
11-29-2012, 03:22 PM
The notion that the state can be controlled by 'we the people' is a very foolish one. As long as the state is around, it will be murdering, kidnapping, robbing and enslaving people which is why it needs to be abolished post haste.

Well, like I say, Galt's Gulch was by invitation only. Now, the nation Thomas Jefferson presided over beginning in 1803, now, that was a pretty good setup. Some of the counties were out of control, but all the federal government did was make sure the British would leave you alone so you could concentrate on keeping your county government honest. Few from any era have had it better than that.


'We just as well become reconciled to the fact that the old politician is with us "even unto death".'Will Rogers


way too often people become simplistic in order to make themselves easily accessible.
anyway ... our world needs a lot more people like kant and a lot less people who will through around meaningless phrases and empty words.

freedom liberty constitution small government founding fathers ... all empty words.

Well, the law is the law, so to ensure freedom, liberty, limited government, and such you do need attention to detail at that level. Maybe the Constitution could use some beefing up, those it seems like they'll choose to ignore it eventually anyway if we let them. But to prevent that, we have to ensure that these aren't empty words to any and every red blooded American, because if they're more than empty words then people will work to preserve them. And that doesn't require a million words worth of proof and loophole-closing.

In other words, don't knock simplification for access. It's one of the highest art forms humanity has.

Odin
11-29-2012, 03:29 PM
It is rather pathetic that you feel the need for the government to hold your hand and keep you safe. It is this confused line of thinking that allows for the state to persist and victimize all of mankind. Shame on you.


The notion that the state can be controlled by 'we the people' is a very foolish one. As long as the state is around, it will be murdering, kidnapping, robbing and enslaving people which is why it needs to be abolished post haste.

No I don't need the government to hold my hand, I need the government to ensure that people meet the obligations which they consent to. That's why I think the government has to be changed, but not abolished. Abolishing the state completely would put us in a worse situation in regard to our freedom than we are in now.

LibertyEagle
11-29-2012, 03:29 PM
It is rather pathetic that you feel the need for the government to hold your hand and keep you safe. It is this confused line of thinking that allows for the state to persist and victimize all of mankind. Shame on you.

The notion that the state can be controlled by 'we the people' is a very foolish one. As long as the state is around, it will be murdering, kidnapping, robbing and enslaving people which is why it needs to be abolished post haste.

Don't worry, your dream that our own government will be gone will be accomplished soon enough. Problem is, it will be replaced with world government.

Odin
11-29-2012, 03:30 PM
Well, like I say, Galt's Gulch was by invitation only. Now, the nation Thomas Jefferson presided over beginning in 1803, now, that was a pretty good setup. Some of the counties were out of control, but all the federal government did was make sure the British would leave you alone so you could concentrate on keeping your county government honest. Few from any era have had it better than that.

Unless you were a slave or a native American. :D

But yes for white people at that time it was the best government for the protection of individual freedom that had existed up to that point imo.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 03:33 PM
he wishes him to hell because he thought his language wasn't simple/simplistic enough?
wow. my respect for this man.

One of the hardest papers I wrote in college was one in which I had to compare & contast Hume & Kant in light of Hume's arousal of Kant from his "dogmatic slumber."

Hume is a pleasure to read. When it comes to Kant, word count is *not* the problem. The problem is a tortuous verbosity twisted into granny knots of clauses & sub-clauses & sub-sub-clauses.

If anything, Mencken was being charitable.

July
11-29-2012, 03:35 PM
I think most libertarians probably believe that the best way to protect Freedom is through a Republican form of government based on the correct principles of liberty. I would not entrust the protection of my freedom to a corporation. So I guess I would be on my own in your version of libertarianism.

What makes people running a corporation fundamentally different from people running a government?

erowe1
11-29-2012, 03:37 PM
What makes people running a corporation fundamentally different from people running a government?

And wouldn't it be correct to refer the mechanisms of running that corporation its government?

Odin
11-29-2012, 03:45 PM
I have studied philosophy, and I do not think that Rand's work is "juvenile" or "sick." Your condemnations smack strongly of personal prejudice. My own experience is that she has very many useful, insightful and povocatively interesting things to say. even when she is wrong - even when she is absurdly wrong. I think she took far too much credit for herself and crippled her work with her extreme insularity and her refusal to usefully engage the wider philosophical ouvre (except to harp on how awful she thought it all was). That she so obviously regarded herself as the Second Coming of Aristotle does not help.

Nietzsche is very interesting - and quite probably one of the most abused & misunderstood philosophers in history. He's invigorating & stimulating, but an ultimately subjective experience (which, I think, is exactly why he's been so abused by so many). His aphoristic style certainly didn't help, either. (Rand was a huge Nietzsche fan in her youth, by the way.)

In the end, I'd take Hume (for his empircism), Spinoza (for his rationalism) or Aristotle ('cause, hell, he's Aristotle) over Nietzsche, any day.

What I find juvenile is the notion that one's metaphysical and epistemological beliefs are derived from axioms (existence, identity, and consciousness iirc). An axiom, or 'tautology', does not provide information, it is something true by definition. Just because I disagree with a perspective about what we can know, for instance, does not mean that I am denying an axiom. Second, each of those terms are problematic - what 'identity' and 'consciousness' consist of are very contentious matters, and even the nature of existence is debatable (does something 'exist' mind-independently or does its existence depend on the mind's application of the concept of existence to the thing itself?).

What I find kind of sick is the notion of 'rational self-interest' being the basis of morality. I don't really want to get into explaining that but I don't mind discussing it. Even so, what people in this country and anywhere really do not need to be told is to be more selfish - "require no further reinforcement" as Christopher Hitchens said.

I think Nietzsche is one of the most important philosophers to read though, simply because of the demolition of a lot of the bullshit that had been proposed before him. And also because it is just amazing reading even though as you say a lot of it can be open to interpretation. I don't think that Nietzsche was trying to propose his own 'philosophy', I think he was criticizing what he saw in the present time, which is still relevant today. That is my 'interpretation' though. Still think Hume's ideas are the most sensible overall though.

vienna
11-29-2012, 03:47 PM
One of the hardest papers I wrote in college was one in which I had to compare & contast Hume & Kant in light of Hume's arousal of Kant from his "dogmatic slumber."

Hume is a pleasure to read. When it comes to Kant, word count is *not* the problem. The problem is a tortuous verbosity twisted into granny knots of clauses & sub-clauses & sub-sub-clauses.

If anything, Mencken was being charitable.
is it now about how easy you find a book to read or about the quality and precision of the argument?
anyway .. we're off topic.

Odin
11-29-2012, 03:53 PM
What makes people running a corporation fundamentally different from people running a government?

Well that is a complicated point of discussion, but one difference would be that those running the government would have to swear to honestly uphold the principles upon which the Republic is founded. That may not mean much today, but that's why we have to change some things. A corporation does not have to be based on principles of freedom, although the idea in a Republican form of government is that all corporations would have to operate in accordance with them because the government would enforce them.

Second just because I believe the government is bad does not mean I have to believe that all corporations are good. I do not. I think most are bad. I would rather try to reform the government than put my freedom in the hands of corporations. I think that is extremely dangerous and I would never voluntarily agree to hand over my freedom and the freedom of my family to a corporation.

Ultimately a good government can only be achieved if the people are good. But if the people on the whole are bad then we will have a bad society whether it has a government or not.

vienna
11-29-2012, 03:57 PM
you can hand over your freedom to a corporation.
would like to see what happens if the chinese government buys this corporation then.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 04:11 PM
If you are confused why I am asking an anarchist about his signature which seems to endorse the notion of "Law", then idk what to tell you. That just seems contradictory to me. Who enforces the Law in anarchism?

That particular quote by Bastiat does not "endorse" anything. It expresses a very wise, profound and insightful observation about what happens when Law and Morality conflict with one another.

Governments (currently) exist - as they did when Bastiat was alive. Laws exist. These are easily & empirically demonstrable facts.

Would you expect me to deny the truth of a statement such as "It is against the law in the state of Alabama to kill someone without just cause" because I'm an anarchist?

IOW: My being an anarchist hasn't got anything to do with the profundity & rightness of Bastiat's observation.

(Furthemore, I would add that the notion of Law is not antithetical to or incompatible with Anarchy. Anarchy is not the absence of Law. It is the absence of the State.)


And second, my first question implied the request for some kind of explanation on your part.

In that case, I would prefer not to answer. I'm not trying to dodge or be evasive, but it's a HUGE subject to which justice cannot possibly be done via mere Internet forum posts. Where I have differences (due to temperament, perspective or approach) with "orthodox" anarcho-capitalism (if there is such a thing), I prefer to bring them up or address them on an "as-needed" basis, when the opportunity or appropriate context arises.

Also, I have little interest in arguing over the rightness or wrongness of Anarchy or Statism (though I sometimes allow myself to get sucked into doing so despite myself). I do, however, enjoy discussing such matters (sometimes) - for my own edification & clarification of thought, if nothing else. This is why I read but (usually) refrain from posting in the various "Anarchy vs. Statism" threads that pop up around here. Unfortunately, they invariably end up devolving (usually quite rapidly) into nasty bouts of name-calling & vitriol-spewing.

TheGrinch
11-29-2012, 04:15 PM
Well that is a complicated point of discussion, but one difference would be that those running the government would have to swear to honestly uphold the principles upon which the Republic is founded. That may not mean much today, but that's why we have to change some things. A corporation does not have to be based on principles of freedom, although the idea in a Republican form of government is that all corporations would have to operate in accordance with them because the government would enforce them.

Second just because I believe the government is bad does not mean I have to believe that all corporations are good. I do not. I think most are bad. I would rather try to reform the government than put my freedom in the hands of corporations. I think that is extremely dangerous and I would never voluntarily agree to hand over my freedom and the freedom of my family to a corporation.

Ultimately a good government can only be achieved if the people are good. But if the people on the whole are bad then we will have a bad society whether it has a government or not.

Very well said. It seems some want to think that if you eliminate government you will eliminate evil.

We need to remove the corruption and interests out of government (in part by keeping it local and accountable), not put it in the hands of these same corrupt interests.

TheGrinch
11-29-2012, 04:18 PM
(Furthemore, I would add that the notion of Law is not antithetical to or incompatible with Anarchy. Anarchy is not the absence of Law. It is the absence of the State.)

As was mentioned earlier, if you have no state, then you have no law. Whatever enforces that law becomes the "state", because if everything is purely voluntary, then it becomes no more than a suggestion.

TheGrinch
11-29-2012, 04:19 PM
//

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 04:24 PM
is it now about how easy you find a book to read or about the quality and precision of the argument?
anyway .. we're off topic.

Yes. That is exactly what it is about. It's about expressing yourself clearly. It's about striking a balance between precision & concision. Hume was able to do it. Kant was not.

As Mencken noted, many of Kant's ideas were simple & easy to grasp - but Kant made it a pain in the ass to grasp them with his labrynthine verbosity.

And you're right. We are off topic.

vienna
11-29-2012, 04:25 PM
Very well said. It seems some want to think that if you eliminate government you will eliminate evil.

We need to remove the corruption and interests out of government (in part by keeping it local and accountable), not put it in the hands of these same corrupt interests.
corruption is everywhere where power and money is. local government, federal government, corporations, relationships between people, religion, ... everywhere.
local government is not different. actually ... local government can be a lot more vulnerable to corruption then federal government.

vienna
11-29-2012, 04:28 PM
Yes. That is exactly what it is about. It's about expressing yourself clearly. It's about striking a balance between precision & concision. Hume was able to do it. Kant was not.

As Mencken noted, many of Kant's ideas were simple & easy to grasp - but Kant made it a pain in the ass to grasp them with his labrynthine verbosity.

And you're right. We are off topic.
i don't wanna continue this discussion because were off topic.
i just think that kant made himselfe and his ideas understood. and that's the point.
he wasn't trying to write bestsellers. and making sub and subsubpoints is sometimes necessary.
no compromise to simplicity is sometimes necessary.
but let's just agree that we have different opinions on that.

TheGrinch
11-29-2012, 04:43 PM
corruption is everywhere where power and money is. local government, federal government, corporations, relationships between people, religion, ... everywhere.
local government is not different. actually ... local government can be a lot more vulnerable to corruption then federal government.

The more local, the more accountable you are to your constituents. If we all marched to town hall and demanded something, they'd be far more likely to have to listen, than with the federal government that represents so many people, that you'd need a virtual uprising of the nation to demand the same.

Also, that's ridiculous that local governments are more rife for corruption... Well, maybe potential for minor corruption but not corruption on the scale of billions and trillions on the line, which makes the federal government far more rife to exploitation.

You must not be a Dr. Paul supporter if you don't understand why states rights are at very least better than leaving the federal government to try to implement one-size-fits-all (but only really benefits a few) solutions.

vienna
11-29-2012, 04:51 PM
The more local, the more accountable you are to your constituents. If we all marched to town hall and demanded something, they'd be far more likely to listen, than with the federal government that represents so many people, that you'd need a virtual uprising of the nation to demand the same.

Also, that's ridiculous that local governments are more rife for corruption... Well, maybe potential for minor corruption but not corruption on the scale of billions and trillions on the line, which makes the federal government far more rife.
just imagine a huge corporation which has it'S headquarters in a little town.
in such towns the real major sits in the head office of that corporation and not in the town hall.
quite usually those towns are totally dependent on such a corporation and they will do nearly anything they want.
or those corporation can literally buy the puplic opinion of such a region by financing or buying up the most important media outlets of the area. or one guy is in the government, his brother in business, a cousin in the media ...
those things happen every day. if you take a look at the situation in southern italy for example you'll see that the local government is a key to the mafia problem.
all those small units of government can easily be infiltrated and be corrupted.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 04:54 PM
As was mentioned earlier, if you have no state, then you have no law.

This is not so. Stateless societies have existed. These societies had & were able to enforce laws.

Medieval Iceland & pre-medieval Ireland are examples.


Whatever enforces that law becomes the "state",

A matter of sematics. This is why I regard many of the arguments between Statists & Anarchists as being so needless & pointless.

Much of it is merely a difference of description & perspective, rather than actual substance.


because if everything is purely voluntary, then it becomes no more than a suggestion.

But everything will not be purely voluntary. Force can legitimately be used against those who use it illegitimately.

Force can also legitimately be used against those who break the law. Existence of law does not require the existence of the State (see above).

vienna
11-29-2012, 04:59 PM
This is not so. Stateless societies have existed. These societies had & were able to enforce laws.

Medieval Iceland & pre-medieval Ireland are examples.

i wouldn't call medieval iceland or pre medieval ireland role models for freedom or sophisticated societies.
those were pretty backwarded farmer and fishermen cultures.
in iceland they had this debating culture ... but those folks up there weren't really a stronghold of civilization.
actually they caused europe a few hundret years of dark ages.

TheGrinch
11-29-2012, 05:00 PM
just imagine a huge corporation which has it'S headquarters in a little town.
in such towns the real major sits in the head office of that corporation and not in the town hall.
quite usually those towns are totally dependent on such a corporation and they will do nearly anything they want.
or those corporation can literally buy the puplic opinion of such a region by financing or buying up the most important media outlets of the area. or one guy is in the government, his brother in business, a cousin in the media ...
those things happen every day. if you take a look at the situation in southern italy for example you'll see that the local government is a key to the mafia problem.
all those small units of government can easily be infiltrated and be corrupted.

Everything you just described is X1000 when you have a federal government going to wars, stripping liberties, and favoring the priveleged to secure resources and ensure control.

It is far easier to take out the trash locally than it is to take it out of Washington. See what the liberty folks have been doing in NH for instance.

HOLLYWOOD
11-29-2012, 05:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2uHSv1asFvU#!

vienna
11-29-2012, 05:09 PM
Everything you just described is X1000 when you have a federal government going to wars, stripping liberties, and favoring the priveleged to secure resources and ensure control.

It is far easier to take out the trash locally than it is to take it out of Washington. See what the liberty folks have been doing in NH for instance.
no it's not easier.
if you have a factory poisoning your ground water because the (mayor of the) city is somehow dependent on the corporation and looks the other way. that effects your life.
and actually there are studies and investigations which show that on a local level a huge amount of corruption is happening.
as i said. in naples, sicily of campania you can see those things very clearly.
and of course to a lesser degree in your or my country.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 05:14 PM
i wouldn't call medieval iceland or pre medieval ireland role models for freedom or sophisticated societies.

I did not claim that they were. They simply demonstate that law is in fact possible without the State.

Whether such is possible for "sophisticated societies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is an entirely empirical matter and cannot be ruled out a priori.

vienna
11-29-2012, 05:22 PM
I did not claim that they were. They simply demonstate that law is in fact possible without the State.

Whether such is possible for "sophisticated societies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is an entirely empirical matter and cannot be ruled out a priori.
their state just looked different because they didn't even live in real cities.
they were a bunch of farmers who enforced their moral believes on the others.
and the vikings were actually quite famous for brutal laws and punishments and very precisly planned wars against their neighbouring countries. in iceland they even had something as a parliament.
there's no real difference to other societies. despite the fact that they weren't as sophisticated as their neighbours to the south.
they didn't even use books or scripture.

July
11-29-2012, 05:58 PM
Well that is a complicated point of discussion, but one difference would be that those running the government would have to swear to honestly uphold the principles upon which the Republic is founded. That may not mean much today, but that's why we have to change some things. A corporation does not have to be based on principles of freedom, although the idea in a Republican form of government is that all corporations would have to operate in accordance with them because the government would enforce them.

Second just because I believe the government is bad does not mean I have to believe that all corporations are good. I do not. I think most are bad. I would rather try to reform the government than put my freedom in the hands of corporations. I think that is extremely dangerous and I would never voluntarily agree to hand over my freedom and the freedom of my family to a corporation.

Ultimately a good government can only be achieved if the people are good. But if the people on the whole are bad then we will have a bad society whether it has a government or not.

I agree, though the point I was trying to make isn't that corporations are inherrently good and government is bad, it was to ask how are they different? They both are run/governed by ordinary men. Why would you trust one versus the other? If corporations are not founded on principles of freedom, what is to stop some powerful and corrupt corporations from simply capturing a government? And what is keeping men who run a government virtuous? Do they not have the same motives, failings, desires for profit, power, etc? The Founders understood this problem and thought we could perhaps get around it by keeping power divided and decentralized as much as possible. I believe anarcho-capitalists view their philosophy as doing just that...just on an even more micro scale.

idiom
11-29-2012, 06:12 PM
Force can legitimately be used against those who use it illegitimately.

Nearly all of the problems with anarcho-capitalism stem from who and how 'legitimate' and illegitimate' force are defined. The NAP has a tonne of implicit assumptions in it that are usually glossed over.

Occam's Banana
11-29-2012, 06:25 PM
Nearly all of the problems with anarcho-capitalism stem from who and how 'legitimate' and illegitimate' force are defined.

Exactly the same thing can be said of statism.


The NAP has a tonne of implicit assumptions in it that are usually glossed over.

Exactly the same thing can be said of any other justice principle.

Conclusion: There are no nice, tidy solutions (anarchistic or statist) that everyone - or even anyone - is going to be fully pleased with or unable to find deficiencies in.

Feeding the Abscess
11-29-2012, 08:24 PM
This. We have so far to go before we even need to argue (and divide) over how limited (or absent) government should be... It's good enough for me that more and more Americans are realizing that the federal government is out of control, and that a number of it's functions can be better left to the states, locales and private enterprise.

We just have so far to go in changing minds and those in power before we let our disagreements over what's purely theoretical at this point take hold.

Except when it comes to IP, apparently. Then it's okay to start threads to argue (and divide) over how limited (or absent) government should be.

Odin
11-30-2012, 06:15 AM
I agree, though the point I was trying to make isn't that corporations are inherrently good and government is bad, it was to ask how are they different? They both are run/governed by ordinary men. Why would you trust one versus the other? If corporations are not founded on principles of freedom, what is to stop some powerful and corrupt corporations from simply capturing a government? And what is keeping men who run a government virtuous? Do they not have the same motives, failings, desires for profit, power, etc? The Founders understood this problem and thought we could perhaps get around it by keeping power divided and decentralized as much as possible. I believe anarcho-capitalists view their philosophy as doing just that...just on an even more micro scale.

I think maybe I didn't explain myself well enough in the first place, let me ask you this though, would you advocate those with the most money getting the most votes? Because that is kind of what you are advocating in suggesting that corporations provide the service government usually provides. They would be accountable to those who pay them the most money (insert joke about that already being the case due to campaign contributors here lol).

In the ideal society, corporations would be bound by the principles of freedom. In an anarcho-capitalist society, they are bound by the interests of the wealthy imho. And I would not put my freedom in the hands of a corporation that is beholden to more wealthy people tbh. I really believe that we can have a good government though if the people change. The people usually lose their freedom before their liberty is revoked. By that I mean if you look at nations which have turned tyrannical or authoritarian, that movement was precipitated by the people losing the the spark of longing for freedom inside themselves. If you look at this country we seem to be going the same way unfortunately. Like George Carlin says we've become a nation of shopping malls and strip malls, just go out on the weekend to see fat, oblivious morons with their dumbass kids packing shit into their shopping cars and putting it on the credit card. Until that kind of attitude and lifestyle dies, I can't really see a good future for us.

Changing the conscience of the people is the number 1 task imo, everything else is secondary after that. I personally believe in a Republican form of government based on firm and solid principles of freedom which form the basis for all law and justified use of force. I also think that instituting that kind of government will play a role in reversing the conscience of the people. I do not think that eliminating the state completely would do that though.

Hopefully that makes more sense. I have a habit of going off on tangents in many of my posts.

acptulsa
11-30-2012, 08:14 AM
just imagine a huge corporation which has it'S headquarters in a little town.
in such towns the real major sits in the head office of that corporation and not in the town hall.
quite usually those towns are totally dependent on such a corporation and they will do nearly anything they want.
or those corporation can literally buy the puplic opinion of such a region by financing or buying up the most important media outlets of the area. or one guy is in the government, his brother in business, a cousin in the media ...
those things happen every day. if you take a look at the situation in southern italy for example you'll see that the local government is a key to the mafia problem.
all those small units of government can easily be infiltrated and be corrupted.

I don't have to. I live plenty close enough to a little town in northwest Arkansas. Perhaps you've heard of Bentonville.

My experience is the corporation officers don't $#!+ where they live. Bentonville is a nice town. But even if that weren't true, I could avoid Bentonville with ease. It's avoiding the United States of America that's proving difficult. So, Bentonville can be as corrupt as Wal Mart wants it to be, as far as I'm concerned--so long as Wal Mart stops buying influence in D.C.

vienna
11-30-2012, 08:41 AM
I don't have to. I live plenty close enough to a little town in northwest Arkansas. Perhaps you've heard of Bentonville.

My experience is the corporation officers don't $#!+ where they live. Bentonville is a nice town. But even if that weren't true, I could avoid Bentonville with ease. It's avoiding the United States of America that's proving difficult. So, Bentonville can be as corrupt as Wal Mart wants it to be, as far as I'm concerned--so long as Wal Mart stops buying influence in D.C.
well they do. there are numerous cases documented where they did so. i can tell you of places like that. like i said. southern italy is a glamorous example for such a swamp.
of course you could leave the town (if your situation allows it ... maybe you need to be close to your parents or something similar and you can't leave). and go somewhere else. and there you might find a similar situation. who knows.
the game is the same everywhere.

with money you can buy influence. in washington as well as in bentonville or vienna.

LibertyPA
11-30-2012, 09:31 AM
I'd rather either option over what we have.

July
11-30-2012, 10:43 AM
I think maybe I didn't explain myself well enough in the first place, let me ask you this though, would you advocate those with the most money getting the most votes? Because that is kind of what you are advocating in suggesting that corporations provide the service government usually provides. They would be accountable to those who pay them the most money (insert joke about that already being the case due to campaign contributors here lol).

In the ideal society, corporations would be bound by the principles of freedom. In an anarcho-capitalist society, they are bound by the interests of the wealthy imho. And I would not put my freedom in the hands of a corporation that is beholden to more wealthy people tbh. I really believe that we can have a good government though if the people change. The people usually lose their freedom before their liberty is revoked. By that I mean if you look at nations which have turned tyrannical or authoritarian, that movement was precipitated by the people losing the the spark of longing for freedom inside themselves. If you look at this country we seem to be going the same way unfortunately. Like George Carlin says we've become a nation of shopping malls and strip malls, just go out on the weekend to see fat, oblivious morons with their dumbass kids packing shit into their shopping cars and putting it on the credit card. Until that kind of attitude and lifestyle dies, I can't really see a good future for us.

Changing the conscience of the people is the number 1 task imo, everything else is secondary after that. I personally believe in a Republican form of government based on firm and solid principles of freedom which form the basis for all law and justified use of force. I also think that instituting that kind of government will play a role in reversing the conscience of the people. I do not think that eliminating the state completely would do that though.

Hopefully that makes more sense. I have a habit of going off on tangents in many of my posts.

Well, first of all, I should say I'm not an an-cap myself, so I can only go so far in explaining my view of it, so take what I say with a grain of salt. :p But I'm not sure I understand your first question. If there is no central government, in a society like that, what would people be voting on exactly? In the current system, rich people (whether they run big global corporations or not) have an edge in granting themselves privilege from the state, since they can afford to buy more representatives, lobbyists, lawyers, media, etc. In an an-cap society, 'voting' would come in the form of direct consumer transactions. It would change the makeup of corporations.... Would corporations be able to grow so massive and oppressive without access to powerful central governments, corporate welfare, standing armies, printing press, etc? To vote in a voluntary society, you wouldn't need to be rich per se, you'd just need the ability to refuse to purchase a product or sign a contract that you don't want, and have the ability to make a choice to find an alternative. You can do that to a corporation, because we don't regard them as being infallible or deserving of our income no matter what. Government is different because we do...and therein lies the problem, IMO.

TheGrinch
11-30-2012, 02:02 PM
Except when it comes to IP, apparently. Then it's okay to start threads to argue (and divide) over how limited (or absent) government should be.

That was theoretical debate in response to previous threads, with me actually making the argument of a self-professed anarchist Rothbard.

I did not go calling people collectivist hippies, aimed at being divisive.... I don't believe I need to go on to explain the difference between theoretical debate and divisive ad-hominem misrepresentation.

Feel free not to join a debate if you don't feel it's worth debating, but don't come lumping me in with this divisive drivel trying to paint who does and doesn't belong in this movement. My point is that we all do, or else our differences will be nothing but theoretical, and never implementable if we continue to eat our own.

MarkoH
12-08-2012, 11:04 PM
The quotes collected in “Rand Was NOT a Libertarian” pretty much apply to Libertarians with a capital L – the party or theoreticians associated with the party – not lowercase libertarians, which are not very well defined.

Another thing: the quotes are frozen in time. Were Ayn Rand alive today, she would have tolerated the libertarian Ron Paul even more than the conservative Barry Goldwater, whom she supported in 1964. But Ron Paul didn’t appear on the national scene until about ten years after her death.

It may come as a surprise that Ayn Rand herself used “libertarian” – small L – to apply to her political philosophy. See Ayn Rand’s Political Label (http://ariwatch.com/AynRandsPoliticalLabel.htm).

Victor Grey
12-09-2012, 12:15 AM
The two statements by posters July and Buddy Ray on the first page were the most insightful to the topic.


Eh, she also thought libertarians were plagerizing her ideas. And libertarians at the time criticized her for running a cult and for being too rigid and intolerant of any deviation to her philosophy, so there was obviously a lot of personal resentment and baggage on both sides of the respective movements... I take a lot of the he said/she said with a grain of salt.


She was just bitter that the movement became something bigger than herself and her own little insular cadre. She laughably claimed libertarians "stole her ideas" even though American libertarianism had been around as a conscious and self-realized movement for at least a hundred years. Also, Rand herself stole from Isabell Paterson and Garet Garrett, even borrowing huge elements of the plot and the name of the protagonist from the latter's novel "The Driver."

These describe my own feelings toward Ayn Rand as a person and her mentality. Which was the real topic at hand.

The rest of the thread's pages while interesting, were of great majority a long off topic debate.